"xxein" wrote in message
...
On May 9, 9:48 am, rbwinn wrote:
On May 9, 6:21 am, PD wrote:



On May 8, 11:00 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 8, 5:04 pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:54 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:43 pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 7:17 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 3:57 pm, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 18:38, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 12:54 pm, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 14:34, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 10:40?am, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 12:25, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 8:06 am, PD
wrote:

Well, no, if lightining strikes the front and rear
of a moving train,
leaving marks on the train and the track, the
marks on the track will
be the length of the train apart, which relativity
of simultaneity
cannot explain. ?According to mathematics, if the
bolts of lightning
are simultaneous in the frame of reference of the
track, the marks on
the track will be closer together than the length
of the train; if the
bolts of lightning are simultaneous in the frame
of reference of the
train, the marks on the track are further apart
than the length of the
train. ?Reality shows that the marks on the track
will be the length
of the train apart, disproving this false teaching
of Einstein.
Robert B. Winn

Nonsense. That is a bunch of words salad. What in
the world those
marks you mention have to do with relativity of
simultaneity?
This shows you have not read anything about SR. What
does it mean
"according to mathematics"? And where does Einstein
say the nonsense
of the marks on the track?
There are two events (the strikes) and two
observers. What these
observers see is the light signal information that
tells them about
the occurrence of those strikes. That is the reason
one of them can
certify "I saw both strikes to be simultaneous",
while the second
certify "I saw the front strike occurring before the
back strike".

Einstein was the one who thought of the train and two
bolts of
lightning. He did not fully consider the mathematics
of the situation
he described. Einstein did not say anything about
marks on the track,
but I did. The marks on the track prove that
relativity of
simultaneity cannot exist in reality. Lightning hits
the front and
rear of the train simultaneously as seen by an
observer by the track,
leaving marks on the front and rear of the train and
marks on the
railroad track. The distance between the marks on the
train is the
length of the train. The distance between the marks on
the track is
the length of the train. In order for relativity of
simultaneity to
exist, the marks on the track would have to be closer
together than
the length of the train. Conversely, if the bolts of
lightning are
seen simultaneously by the observer on the train, in
order for
relativity of simultaneity to exist, the marks on the
track would have
to be further apart than the length of the train.
Reality shows that
the marks on the track are the length of the train
apart.
Robert B. Winn

That is complete nonsense. What Einstein wrote about
this subject,
just for people like you, can be seen
inhttp://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
Observers do not have to measure any length (actually it
would be very
tough to measure a 200000km train, not speaking of how
to build it and
how to place the tracks). The only requirement is for
the observers to
coincide at t=0 at x=0, that the strikes occurred at
x=-X0 and at x=
+X0 and that the train with its observer is moving at a
speed v into
the +x direction.
The observations consist of both observers receiving the
light signals
that communicate them of the strikes occurrence. Where
in the world
are you seeing something related to measuring lengths?

c=176,000 miles /sec. The mile is a unit of length. The
velocity of
the train is also measured in units of length divided by
time. In
addition to that, the train has a length that is measured
in units of
length.
Robert B. Winn

And what are you trying to say with that?.
We are talking about the relativity of simultaneity, and
that refers
to time relations, not to length contraction.
The whole point of this train thought experiment is to prove
that time
is not absolute.

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Relativity of simultaneity, as explained by Einstein, is
dependent on
length contraction.

Actually, no it's not. You'll notice that the relativity of
simultaneity is established without needing to reference the
distance
between the marks. However, you brought up the *additional*
information about the distance between the marks. In so doing,
you
find out that there is a *consequence* of relativity of
simultaneity:
relativity of length.

If lightning strikes both ends of a train,
leaving marks on the ends of the train and marks on the track,
the
only way the marks can be closer together than the length of
the
train, as is required if the lightning at the front strikes
first, is
if there is a distance contraction, as seen from the frame of
reference of the track.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

Well, as I said, that would be the problem of people who believe
it
exists. I believe the Galilean transformation equations which
indicate that relativity of simultaneity and distance contraction
do
not exist.

I know you believe that. That's because you're ignorant of the
experimental data, I believe. If you're not interested enough in the
truth to investigate the data, then I'm under no compunction to make
you change your beliefs.

PD

Ignorant of experimental dataI

Ignorant of experimental data? The only experiment I have to run is
posting equations in sci.physics.relativity.

Aha. There, you see, is where you make a basic mistake, confusing
looking at equations with looking at experimental data. You keep
wanting to look at equations, and you shy away from looking at data.

You might consider asking a scientist how science is done, Bobby,
rather than just playing it the way you want to play it.

So, PD, when are you
going to tell us about the experiments that disprove the Galilean
transformation equations?

I already have, Bobby, and I've reminded you about it too. Just
because you're still holding the hoop up, Bobby, doesn't mean that I'm
going to jump through it again. You can lift a finger too.

You have plenty of time to post all of these denials. If you had
anything meaningful, you could post it, too. Science has not written
anything about the Galilean transformation equations except proofs
that the ether theory does not explain the results of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. I have already read enough of those. If you have
something new, go ahead and tell us what it is.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

| xxein: I am wondering why anybody should even try to teach anything
| to a resolute believer in something else.

So why do you?